Op-Ed: Affirmative Action Is Not Reverse Racism: Check Your Privilege

On Oct. 25, the UCLA chapter of Young Americans for Liberty held a bake sale on Bruin Walk that was a satirical and critical stance on the policy of affirmative action in admission decisions. The premise of the bake sale was to equate prices for Diddy Riese cookies to the apparent benefit that affirmative action would provide to historically underrepresented groups at UCLA and other campuses. The controversial event raised the ire of many underrepresented student groups who advocated for affirmative action and against California’s Prop 209.

The problem with the event, simply put, was that it was a) a gross misrepresentation of the system of affirmative action and who it benefits and b) it completely ignores the historical/systematic barriers that communities of color have experienced when coming into contact with institutions and the inherent benefits that those from the dominant class have inherited (whether they acknowledge it or not).

Affirmative Action is NOT a get-into-college instant pass

First, to equate the benefit of affirmative action to a sliding scale of access to college, with communities of color reaping enormous and completely unfair advantages is, frankly, absurd on a number of levels. First, it makes the assumption that simply by identifying as Black, Latino, or American Indian/Alaska Native, you gain an almost-instant acceptance into universities, even if you wouldn’t qualify otherwise. This is simply not the case and an extreme exaggeration of affirmative action. Affirmative action in admissions is not a quota system; in many systems that have previously used or currently include race within holistic admissions processes, race equates to one point in a typically 12-point system. One point. That’s hardly an advantage or a free-entrance pass to college.

Who affirmative action actually benefits

It is also NOT reverse discrimination, which is often a term that is loosely thrown around by those opposed to affirmative action. Affirmative action does not favor communities of color and it does not create a systematic block to colleges for whites. In fact, recent studies have shown that white women benefit from affirmative action more than any other group. For example, in the University of Texas affirmative action case that made Abigail Fisher a household name, you can clearly see that communities of color are not the ones benefitting from affirmative action policies. In the year that Fisher applied, UT made exceptions and did admit 47 students who had lower grades and test scores than Fisher; five of these students were either Black or Latino, while the remaining 42 (89%) were white.

Let’s not forget intersectionality!

This sliding scale utilized by the Young Americans for Liberty group also ignores the intersectionality of race, class, gender, sexuality, and life experience that UCLA includes in it’s current admissions process. It places Asian Americans at the top of this scale, homogenizing the experiences of Asians and helping to perpetuate the model minority myth; it does not take into account the struggles of many Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander groups, who often experience many of the same institutional discriminations that Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians/Native Alaskans have experienced here in the US. There’s no mention of how LGBTQ communities of color experience the admissions process, nor a mention of how rural whites from extremely poor communities interact with colleges either. This flaw that some say is just a technical detail and takes away from overall argument against affirmative action, is a critical one. It points to complexities in the admission process in helping to not only admit students who are “qualified” to this campus, but also to help create a truly diverse campus climate, particularly for underrepresented groups.

Secondly, affirmative action was created to attempt to remedy a systematic exclusion of communities of color from academia. It was not, and is not, a final remedy and only solution to repairing this critical issue. The path to college for communities of color is one littered with countless institutional barriers such as the lack of intergenerational wealth and cultural capital, the educational systems in communities of color that push students out of school instead of towards higher education, the school-to-prison pipeline that locks up Black and Latino students at alarmingly high rates, and the current economic system that further perpetuates a severe gap between the wealthy and the poor, among others.

Be aware of your privilege

Many times, when critiques of affirmative action are made, the white privilege (or subscription to whiteness, for folks of color who oppose affirmative action) of the individual critiquing the system shines through. White privilege is an integral part of the critique of affirmative action, and those who wish to deny that their whiteness is an issue (or even exists) only further perpetuate a system that has existed for more than half a millennia in this country. For anyone to truly begin to remedy this system of exclusion for communities of color, white privilege must not only be accounted for, it must be an integral part of the solution.

Lately, whether at the USAC hearing for the flawed, biased, and recently defeated Israeli-Palestinian resolution, or in the social media fallout from the USAC meeting and the affirmative action bake sale, there is a large contingent of voices denying that white privilege exists, calling it reverse racism, and calling on communities of color to have a more peaceful dialogue, one that doesn’t marginalize anyone or accuse anyone of being an oppressor.

If someone calls you out on your white privilege, they are not marginalizing you. Plain and simple. They are asking (or telling) you to be aware that you were not born in a vacuum and that your skin color and ancestry have a very specific meaning in this country, a meaning that affords you and your ancestors certain advantages, perks, or benefits that a large portion of this country do not experience and are prevented from accessing, simply because of their skin color, nationality, ethnic and/or cultural practices, sexuality, and so on. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn’t mean the system will cease to exist with your denial. Your denial means that you are individually choosing to continue to support a system that has, I’d argue, the most far-reaching and damaging effects on communities of color in this country. Your denial of white privilege doesn’t mean that less Blacks and Latinos will be incarcerated in their lifetime; it doesn’t mean that Black, Latino, and American Indian women will no longer be making the lowest income among all groups in this country; it also doesn’t mean that queer youth of color will suddenly no longer experience disturbing rates of homelessness in Los Angeles County. Your denial of your privilege perpetuates inequality and is offensive to us folks of color who have to fight uphill against a system that devalues (and sometimes exploits) our cultural practices, our languages, our countries, our his/herstories, and our unique experiences and struggles in this country. When you attack affirmative action, you send a very clear message to those of us who, despite the odds against us, have made it to UCLA. You’re saying we don’t belong here, that we’re not qualified to be here, and that a campus that is inclusive and supportive of everyone is not important to you. It is dehumanizing and it needs to stop.

Affirmative actions is one tool, not the tool

Affirmative action on this campus, whether it is in admissions, or faculty or staff hiring (which has an even greater racial disparity than admissions), is an integral and necessary part of the healing process for communities of color. With non-white babies outnumbering whites for the second time in this country’s history (let’s not forget that whites weren’t always the majority) it is imperative that the country responds to changing demographics. This change, however, cannot support the current status quo and must integrate a critical stance on whiteness and the economic systems that exploit our communities and prevent us from making significant changes to our current situation. Affirmative action remains one of the best options for making changes within the current system until a new system of rule and economy can be implemented in this country.

Author: Michael Oshiro

Michael Oshiro is a 4th year PhD student in a joint program in special education between CSULA and UCLA. He was a secondary special education teacher, and spent much of his time teaching and advocating for foster and incarcerated youth, which is what most of his research centers on. He is also currently a project director for the Incarcerated Youth Tutorial Project (IYTP), which is a CPOSA service project that tutors and mentors young men of color at an LA probation camp.

16 Comments

What this article unsurprisingly misses is the fact that the real barrier to education for unprivileged minorities isn’t race at all—it’s all in the socioeconomic status. Now make no mistake, there is a definite correlation of socioeconomic standing and race. But anyone who has taken a critical course on education knows that SES plays the dominant role in why unprivileged minorities systematically underachieve academically up until high school (and this, along with other opportunities middle class children have, is what Affirmative Action largely aims to combat).

The problem with Affirmative Action isn’t that there exists a subset of students at a campus who don’t ‘deserve’ to be at their campus, but rather that it’s ineffective at its explicit goal. Now some may argue that Affirmative Action also aims to create a diversity of races on campus as well, and we can argue until we’re blue about whether or not this is fair. But we can’t conflate diversity of races with diversity of people. Does a middle-class black hold more in common with a middle-class white person or a lower-class black person? You don’t need to come up with an answer, because the mere existence of a debate proves that there socioeconomic status is just as important as race. In other words, we can’t keep filling up Ivies with middle class black & Latino students in the name of diversity.

So the solution is obvious—instead of basing Affirmative Action on race, base it on SES instead. A middle class black, Latino, or Southeast Asian student is far more privileged than a white or East/South Asian student living in the inner city. And because there’s a correlation between race and SES anyways, prestigious colleges will still be admitting and hopefully creating future leaders in their racial communities—the difference being that these leaders actually will understand the problems plaguing the most unprivileged children in our society.

(As an aside, your article missed a really key point, though it’s less prevalent in the UC system as in other universities. White people already have their own version of Affirmative Action—it’s called legacy and it’s why Harvard can manage to be 50% white while Berkeley and LA are majority Asian-Americans. When the majority of your alumni were white on racial grounds, then legacy is a convenient way of keeping that racial composition without causing public outrage. Of course this means East and South Asian-Americans are getting the shaft, but it’s not like that’s surprising anyone.)

Anonymous: You bring up an excellent point that I didn’t get to address in my writing; I was trying my best to not ramble on, and yes, it’s a bit less of an issue here at UCLA. Yes, whites do have a system of affirmative action that almost never gets talked about and their certainly hasn’t been any legislation geared towards it (that I’m aware of). Where is the outrage? I think as a movement, we definitely should put more energy in reminding those in opposition to affirmative action that there is a system that almost always benefits whites, and that it deserves as much attention as traditional affirmative action.

I take issue to much of the rest of the things said in your comments. First, you state that there is a definite (your words) correlation between socioeconomic status and race and that “anyone who has taken a critical course on education knows that SES plays the dominant role in why unprivileged minorities systematically underachieve academically up until high school.” Do I detect a little shade being thrown here? Anyone who’s taken a critical course on education AND a beginner’s course in educational statistics would tell you that correlation is NOT causation. In other words, there is a relationship, and a strong one at that, between race and socioeconomic status. That DOES NOT mean that socioeconomic status causes racial inequalities for communities of color. It is a relationship but that’s not proof by any means that the relationship is caused by socioeconomic status. Most likely, it’s a relationship that goes both ways. So, SES as the sole determinant of an affirmative action policy would NOT be grounded in critical education research.

I think you’ve missed the main point of my opinion piece, which is that while race is extremely important, it is not the ONLY thing that is important. Like I stated in the section on intersectionality, there are multiple oppressions that exist in this society that create barriers for many students, even some white students. These barriers do affect communities of color at much greater rates and with much greater reach, but poverty (or SES, to stay consistent with terminology) also affects whites as well. Again, as I mentioned, race is just one (ONE) factor among many that an admissions office should consider; UCLA, in its holistic approach to admission, does take into consideration life experiences, among which can be SES. So, I’m not sure how your argument holds up much weight, as you’re not saying anything that I haven’t already said in some form.

“So the solution is obvious—instead of basing Affirmative Action on race, base it on SES instead. A middle class black, Latino, or Southeast Asian student is far more privileged than a white or East/South Asian student living in the inner city. And because there’s a correlation between race and SES anyways, prestigious colleges will still be admitting and hopefully creating future leaders in their racial communities—the difference being that these leaders actually will understand the problems plaguing the most unprivileged children in our society.”

Lastly, this series of statements is just flat out problematic. Sounds a lot like oppression olympics to me. To talk of class/SES as the sole determinant of privilege is just not enough. It doesn’t account for the multitude of intersectionality that oppressed communities of color face. Just because we “move up” a class, does not mean that officers are less likely to pull us over. It doesn’t mean that banking institutions are less likely to push risky loans for mortgages or even deny loans because of our new-found class status. That last sentence is borderline offensive; why would “these leaders,” (whom are?) actually understand the problems? What are you trying to say? That middle-class Blacks and Latinos can’t “understand” systems of oppression? This is confusing, at the least, if not a blatant overgeneralization of several communities.

First, while the original post was a bit unclear on how “SES plays the dominant role in why unprivileged minorities systematically underachieve academically up until high school”, I think you should probably not assert that being a certain race causes you to be in a certain socioeconomic status. I think “Most likely, it’s a relationship that goes both ways.” is exactly what you would like to not have said from those who take elementary statistical courses.

I think you know probably know better than I that it is not generalizable across races.

Furthermore, the following excerpt probably would anger you if I changed one word:

If someone calls you out on your white privilege, they are not stereotyping you. Plain and simple. They are asking (or telling) you to be aware that you were not born in a vacuum and that your skin color and ancestry have a very specific meaning in this country, a meaning that affords you and your ancestors certain advantages, perks, or benefits that a large portion of this country do not experience and are prevented from accessing, simply because of their skin color, nationality, ethnic and/or cultural practices, sexuality, and so on.

Somehow this seems to me less acceptable; it carries the assumption that all white people are a) homogeneously white and b) of privileged background. Let’s take it one at a time:

a) White people…are actually not quite so blandly ethnicity-less. Their ancestors, at least, would probably call themselves Italians or Irish or Slavic or Polish or Germans or any of the other ethnic groups that once were new to the continent. And, as one might guess from our current state of affairs, as newcomers they were probably not liked. Now, yes, it should be said that we do erase the ethnicities of every other racial group, but it seems as though this claim is something left for middle class children to share to their appropriately privileged classrooms; that not every white person came over in ~1500 to seek Gold, Glory, and the gory end of the so called American Indian, spreading their progeny to the Ivy Leagues and the upper echelon of society.

In fact, viewing mortality rates from the time, it seems very few survived.

b) So now knowing that some white people may have come over from the Ireland or Russia or Germany or the Balkans in the last 150 years, and that their ancestors may have been at the bottom of the heap for a very unhappy period of time, what does that tell us? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Ok no, that’s a lie, our ancestors wealth has quite a lot to do with our wealth, in decreasing amounts of power as you go further back. I’m fairly certain I’m related to royalty, but that’s just a statistical reality of being genetically Asian. The Khans really got around, but that was a long time ago and I’ve got nothing to show for it.

If you immigrated here (genetically speaking) more recently than most, chances are you’re probably poorer than most. But why doesn’t this matter? Because to be honest, there are people who have been here forever and who are still really really poor. I mean if we’re going for the easy example, the American Indians. But we want to talk about white people right? Ok, Appalachia. Rural and impoverished but continually settled since a little bit after 1763, the residents (who are by in large “white” which means Irish, Scots-Irish or not Irish) did not seem to get grandfathered into privilege. Also, black people, who have been here since they set up Georgia, or perhaps the Carolinas. I’m not really sure which one had large populations of slaves first.

But then…not all of them, right? Some escaped poverty and ended up doing quite well, no matter if they were American Indians, White, or Black.

Why am I saying all this? Because skin color is just a bad measure of anything except melanin and/or sunburn potential, because it seems to me that calling people out for white privilege seems to me like one of the more racist things one can do, akin to calling out a black person for being either a) a slave, or b) in a brutal tribal war quite recently. Because “this is confusing, at the least, if not a blatant overgeneralization of several communities” is really how I feel and I’ve taken up the keyboard to express it.

I’m intrigued what word you’d be inclined to change that would “anger me.” I assume changing white to some other non-white ethnicity, which wouldn’t anger me. It would more baffle me as it would make zero sense.

White privilege does not paint all whites as homogenous. US society, and the ways in which European immigrants have assimilated into this country over the past 200-300 years, has created more homogeneity than you seem willing to admit. I will argue that whites have privilege in MANY instances, maybe not all instances though. Let’s use your European immigration example as how these groups WILLINGLY accepted whiteness to improve their lot in America.

We all know that many European groups, such as the ones that you’ve mentioned, arrived in this country and had a pretty rough go in terms of how they were treated by the established white population here in the states. No one is denying the difficulty Irish, Scots, Balkan, Slavic, Polish folks, etc. faced when getting here. What you seem to either forgotten to mention (or chose not to), within a generation or two of arrival in this country, these groups quickly began to subscribe to the all-dominating force of whiteness, white supremacy, white hegemony. They quickly aligned themselves with white, American nationalist groups that continued to oppress the American Indians and Blacks in this country. Their narratives and customs began to get woven into America’s narrative of a melting pot, enough so that some even have regularly celebrated holidays (like St. Patrick’s Day, for example) and came to represent the “model immigrant” narrative. This is a crucial component of understanding how it is pretty much impossible to compare the immigration of Europeans to Africans and those from Mexico, Central, and South America. Non-whites were NOT given this opportunity to assimilate and have their customs, histories, practices integrated into American society.

I’m not sure if you missed my original article, or just glossed over it, but I clearly state that the Young Americans for Liberty sliding scale used during their action ignores intersectionality completely, and I specifically referenced poor, rural whites as those who are left out of their poorly-designed protest. As I’ve said in several replies, this is a key part of society that must also not be ignored, and I believe that the holistic admissions process of UCLA should (and does) account for life experiences that act as mitigating circumstances. Affirmative action supporters are not trying to systematically deny whites access to college, particularly those living in poverty.

“Why am I saying all this? Because skin color is just a bad measure of anything except melanin and/or sunburn potential, because it seems to me that calling people out for white privilege seems to me like one of the more racist things one can do, akin to calling out a black person for being either a) a slave, or b) in a brutal tribal war quite recently. Because “this is confusing, at the least, if not a blatant overgeneralization of several communities” is really how I feel and I’ve taken up the keyboard to express it.”

Sorry, but saying that calling someone out on their white privilege “seems to [be] like one of the more racist things one can do” and comparing it to calling Blacks “slaves” or “in a brutal tribal war” is flat out disgusting. This last statement reveals how far down the rabbit hole YOU’VE fallen in denying your own privilege. I’d find it hard to believe you’ve had any real encounters with how damaging, hurtful, and deadly white hegemony is for communities of color; otherwise, you’d cringe at even having the thought of comparing calling someone out for their whiteness and calling a Black brother or sister a slave. This is a disgraceful and disgusting analogy, and you should feel embarrassed for having typed it out. And yes, I know you’re Asian, and don’t think that people of color can’t subscribe to whiteness. Do a little soul searching, my friend, on internalized racism. It might serve you some good.

“In other words, there is a relationship, and a strong one at that, between race and socioeconomic status. That DOES NOT mean that socioeconomic status causes racial inequalities for communities of color.”

You’re right that my post was an oversimplification. There’s a large correlation between race and SES, and it was hasty of me to state it as causative. And of course there are studies about cultural capital and the like that argue that there is actually a racially discriminating aspect in our education system. Still, it’s a moot point to bring up because middle class minorities fare just as well as middle class whites, i.e. they don’t face these same challenges that their urban counterparts do (either that or they succeed in spite of them, but I think the point is they’re still succeeding).

“I think you’ve missed the main point of my opinion piece, which is that while race is extremely important, it is not the ONLY thing that is important”

I didn’t miss the point here, but I ignored it because it’s irrelevant in terms of Affirmative Action. If we both agreed Affirmative Action was unfair for a second, then I think we’d both agree that it should be eliminated, regardless of whether there are other criteria by which candidates are also judged (and obviously there are). The argument that “Affirmative Action is not unfair because there are external factors that mitigate its influence” says nothing about the actual nature of Affirmative Action itself.

“It doesn’t account for the multitude of intersectionality that oppressed communities of color face. Just because we “move up” a class, does not mean that officers are less likely to pull us over. It doesn’t mean that banking institutions are less likely to push risky loans for mortgages or even deny loans because of our new-found class status.”

So is the argument is that Affirmative Action is one way society can compensate minorities for the systemic discrimination they face in America? In that case it’s a clear difference of opinion on our parts. I believe Affirmative Action should make up for the disparities in the education system, and of course a large part of that is racially based. But I do believe its scope should be confined to education and education alone. You can’t expect Affirmative Action to solve every racial problem, especially when it’s a zero-sum game: if Affirmative Action by definition helps a certain subset of the population get in by race, then another portion of the population, by definition, is being hurt. If you limit its scope to educational inconsistencies in America, then suddenly the justification for Affirmative Action ‘hurting’ some students is a lot stronger (i.e. it’s making up for the intrinsic advantage—privilege as you call it—that these students have).

And I’m not concerned with the usage of ‘privilege’ outside of Affirmative Action/education, so I did not for a second argue that SES “is the sole determinant of privelege.”

“What are you trying to say? That middle-class Blacks and Latinos can’t “understand” systems of oppression? This is confusing, at the least, if not a blatant overgeneralization of several communities.”

You’re trying to paint my words as some absolute statement (“Middle Class Blacks and Latinos do not understand oppression”) when I’m simply arguing that class helps alleviate some of this ‘oppression’ and so by definition urban youths understand better the problems that urban youths face. Maybe you disagree and think middle class Blacks and Latinos face exactly the same problems urban youths. In that case there’s really no point of me responding. But if you accept the premise of my argument, then it stands to reason it’s much more important to base Affirmative Action on SES and not race, so that Harvard’s Black population isn’t 40%+ immigrant black (as plenty of articles online show).

“Still, it’s a moot point to bring up because middle class minorities fare just as well as middle class whites, i.e. they don’t face these same challenges that their urban counterparts do (either that or they succeed in spite of them, but I think the point is they’re still succeeding).”

Wait, how is it a moot point? How exactly do middle class people of color fare just as well as middle class whites? This seems to make no sense to me, particularly since you acknowledge (or half-acknowledge, it appears) that cultural capital plays an important role in all of this. Again, it appears that you’re making the assumption that if communities of color move up in class/SES standing (like the middle class), that somehow institutional racism ceases to have an effect on their lives. Which is just absurd.

“So is the argument is that Affirmative Action is one way society can compensate minorities for the systemic discrimination they face in America? In that case it’s a clear difference of opinion on our parts. I believe Affirmative Action should make up for the disparities in the education system, and of course a large part of that is racially based. But I do believe its scope should be confined to education and education alone. You can’t expect Affirmative Action to solve every racial problem, especially when it’s a zero-sum game: if Affirmative Action by definition helps a certain subset of the population get in by race, then another portion of the population, by definition, is being hurt. If you limit its scope to educational inconsistencies in America, then suddenly the justification for Affirmative Action ‘hurting’ some students is a lot stronger (i.e. it’s making up for the intrinsic advantage—privilege as you call it—that these students have).”

Again, you’ve missed the point and you’re taking this statement out of the context to which it was referring to. I’m saying, like I just said above, that moving up in class from a lower one to a middle one does not mean that institutional racism begins to have less power or effect. We are referring to affirmative action in education. I was responding to your claim that a middle class person of color has way more privilege than a lower class white person. Which is why I discussed the multitude of oppressions that people of color face regardless (for the most part) of class/SES. No where did I say that I thought affirmative action should solve “every racial problem,” as you put it. If you re-read the last paragraph, it’s clear (even from the title) that affirmative action is not THE solution to institutional racism. It is just one tool. You seem stuck on the racial aspect of affirmative action and you keep making incorrect assumptions about how the system works. You create this dichotomy of “one race gets in and another gets hurt” as if we’re talking of a quota system that systematically excludes whites from higher education. Last I checked, whites are doing JUST FINE getting access to higher education. There’s no epidemic of schools shutting whites out in droves from 4-year universities.

Actually as an ethnic Chinese person living in the West I don’t like how the prices for “Asian Americans” are even higher than for Caucasians. Asians in the West also face racism and prejudice from white people on many things and frankly denying this is itself rather racist. I don’t have any “racial/cultural privilege” in the West simply because I’m Chinese or Asian. Any person of any race or political affiliation saying stuff like that is just BS.

If the prices for Asian Americans are even higher than for whites, what does it mean? Does it mean that Asians also have “white privilege”? Or that there is “Asian privilege” which is even greater than “white privilege”? Or that Asians don’t face racism resulting from “white privilege”?

As an ethnic Chinese trans woman living in Britain, I would say that any notion that Chinese or “Asians” are privileged because of their race/culture or don’t face racism like other non-white minorities is really very ridiculous and quite racist and offensive in itself.

The erasure of the reality of racism against Asians (or certain groups of Asians) in the West is itself a form of anti-Asian racism. It’s known as the “model minority myth”.

Certain groups of Asians may indeed be better represented in universities/colleges and some academic circles, but it’s ridiculous to consider this to be the primary reflection of racial dynamics. Even better educated Asians are still on average economically poorer than white people. My dad had a PhD in Biochemistry from the Imperial College in London (one of the best in the UK) and what is his job now? He works part-time in the evenings in a Chinese take-away. Only a fool would think that academics are the elites that rule the world today. Nope. It’s the big capitalists and rich politicians who rule the world, and most of them are still white Westerners and the West still dominates the entire world in many ways. Also, there are lots of Asian students on campuses but proportionally speaking far fewer Asian professors, especially at the top. In some places there are also more female students than male students but still more male professors, surely you don’t think this means in these places women don’t face sexism anymore? Students aren’t really a “privileged group” anyway, especially not today with such high levels of student debt and student unemployment etc. So yes some Asians are well-represented among the student population, but it’s ridiculous to think this means Asians in general aren’t socio-economically disadvantaged or suffer from racism.

Also, “Asian” is a pretty vague term which is extremely diverse. I think there is a huge difference between Asian immigrants from richer Asian countries/regions and those from poorer countries/regions. At the moment I work as a translator and adviser who provide help and support to recent poor immigrants from poorer regions of mainland China in the UK, and many of them are economically just as disadvantaged as the average Mexican immigrant in America. If Asians are really the “model minority” who don’t face problems or disadvantages, why would my job still exist? The idea that “all Asians are middle class” is just ridiculous. Perhaps most Japanese people in the West are “middle class”, but this is certainly not true for mainland Chinese people, or those from Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

Actually as an ethnic Chinese person living in the West I don’t like how the prices for “Asian Americans” are even higher than for Caucasians. Asians in the West also face racism and prejudice from white people on many things and frankly denying this is itself rather racist.

If the prices for Asian Americans are even higher than for whites, what does it mean? Does it mean that Asians also have “white privilege”? Or that there is “Asian privilege” which is even greater than “white privilege”? Or that Asians don’t face racism resulting from “white privilege”?

As an ethnic Chinese trans woman living in Britain, I would say that any notion that Chinese or “Asians” are privileged because of their race/culture or don’t face racism like other non-white minorities is really very ridiculous and quite racist and offensive in itself.

The erasure of the reality of racism against Asians (or certain groups of Asians) in the West is itself a form of anti-Asian racism. It’s known as the “model minority myth”.

Certain groups of Asians may indeed be better represented in universities/colleges and some academic circles, but it’s ridiculous to consider this to be the primary reflection of racial dynamics. Even better educated Asians are still on average economically poorer than white people. My dad had a PhD in Biochemistry from the Imperial College in London (one of the best in the UK) and what is his job now? He works part-time in the evenings in a Chinese take-away. Only a fool would think that academics are the elites that rule the world today. Nope. It’s the big capitalists and rich politicians who rule the world, and most of them are still white Westerners and the West still dominates the entire world in many ways. Also, there are lots of Asian students on campuses but proportionally speaking far fewer Asian professors, especially at the top. In some places there are also more female students than male students but still more male professors, surely you don’t think this means in these places women don’t face sexism anymore? Students aren’t really a “privileged group” anyway, especially not today with such high levels of student debt and student unemployment etc. So yes some Asians are well-represented among the student population, but it’s ridiculous to think this means Asians in general aren’t socio-economically disadvantaged or suffer from racism.

Also, “Asian” is a pretty vague term which is extremely diverse. I think there is a huge difference between Asian immigrants from richer Asian countries/regions and those from poorer countries/regions. At the moment I work as a translator and adviser who provide help and support to recent poor immigrants from poorer regions of mainland China in the UK, and many of them are economically just as disadvantaged as the average Mexican immigrant in America. If Asians are really the “model minority” who don’t face problems or disadvantages, why would my job still exist? The idea that “all Asians are middle class” is just ridiculous. Perhaps most Japanese people in the West are “middle class”, but this is certainly not true for mainland Chinese people, or those from Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

Talking of “intersectionality”, people should realise that even “racism” itself is far from linear or one-dimensional, even “racism” itself consists of “intersectionality” within. For instance, people of group A might be more privileged than people of group B in terms of culture, but less privileged in terms of physical race.

There is some truth in the suggestion that certain groups of Asians aren’t really disadvantaged in education and certain academic circles, but even this should certainly not be over-stated. While Asians are generally well-represented among students and lower level academic staff, most of the top professors are still disproportionally white, especially if you consider how many Asian students there are. In some places nowadays there are also more female students than male students but still more male professors, but no-one would suggest just because there are more female students there is no sexism in these places. Why should race be considered any differently?

And it’s not just in fields like “Western” science and “Western” philosophy that most of the top professors are white, but even in “Chinese” fields like Sinology or Chinese Studies, often the most famous academics would still be white. For instance the most famous and greatest historian of ancient Chinese science, Joseph Needham, was a white British man who had a Chinese wife. Personally I actually quite like Needham but it is interesting that he is much more famous world-wide (including in China itself) than any Chinese historian of China’s own scientific history, including in China itself.

But what I really cannot accept and find quite offensive is the suggestion that Asians are not economically disadvantaged in general compared with whites. One should realise that education level or what grades you got at school is far from the primary factor determining one’s socio-economic and cultural status. Many regions of Asia, even today, are still much poorer than most of the West. In mainland China today for instance there are still 500 million people (around the population of the entire EU) who live on less than $2 a day. One can make a legitimate case that Japanese people or those from developed regions/countries in Asia aren’t in general more economically disadvantaged than white Westerners, even though they certainly still face cultural racism, but most Asians aren’t like the Japanese economically speaking.

This is like specifically in the fields of many sports, one could say that Black people are no longer disadvantaged, but this clearly doesn’t mean Black people aren’t disadvantaged in the general socio-economic and cultural sense.

I reject any Western notion of “intersectionality” that does not take seriously the existence of racism against Asians in the West.